Classification of Set expressions

A.V.Koonin classified Phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming Phraseological units.

Primary ways of forming Phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the basis of a free word group:

a) by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups: launching pad – стартовая площадка, in its transferred meaning- отправной пункт, to link up – стыковаться, in its transferred meaning – знакомиться

B) from free word groups by transferring their meaning (simile, contrast, metaphor) as old as the hills – старый как мир, in a nut shell – короче говоря, more or less

c) by means of rhyming – by hook or by crook – by any possible means, high and dry left without help.

Secondary ways are those when Phraseological units is formed on the basis of another Phraseological units

a) A thin cat – a poor person was formed by contrasting it with fat cat – a rich person

Structural classification. A set expression functioning in speech is equivalent in distribution to definite classes of words or to complete sentences. Therefore we can distinguish set expressions that are nominal phrases: the root of the trouble; verbal phrases: to take the bull by the horns; adjectival phrases: as good as gold; adverbial phrases: from head to heels; prepositional phrases: in the course of; conjunctional: as gold, as fit as a fiddle, now or never.

Most set expressions tend to keep their history. Very many examples connected with sea can be quoted: to be on the rocks, to sail close to the wind, smooth sailing.

A Phraseological unit is a complex phenomenon with a number of important features which can be approached from different points of view. Hence, there exist a considerable number of different classifications, based on different principles.

The traditional and oldest principle for classification of Phraseological units is based on their original content and may be called thematic. This approach is widely used by English and American scholars. On this principle idioms are classified according to their source of origin i.e. the particular sphere of human activity, life of nature, natural phenomena, etc. So L.P. Smith gives in his classification groups of idioms used by sailors, fishermen, soldiers, hunters and associated with realia, phenomena and conditions of their occupations.

Smith points out that those word-groups associated with the sea and the life of the seamen are especially numerous in English vocabulary. Most of them have developed meanings which have no longer any association with sea. Here are some examples:

To be all at sea – to be unable to understand;

To sink or swim – to fail or succeed;

In deep water – in trouble or in danger;

In low water, or on rocks – in strained financial circumstances;

To be in the same boat with somebody – to be in the same situation;

To sail under false colors – to pretend to be what one is not;

To show one’s colors – to betray one’s real character or intention;

To weather the storm – to overcome difficulties;

Three sheets in the wind – be very drunk.

Though, direct association with the sea in all these idioms have been lost distant memories of it still remain.

The thematic principle of classifying Phraseological units has real merits but it doesn’t take into consideration the linguistic characteristic features of Phraseological units.

The classification offered by Academician V.V.Vinogradov is the first classification based on the semantic principle. It is based on the motivation of the unit i.e. the relationship existing between the meaning of the whole and the meaning of its components; and the degree of semantic cohesion between the components of Phraseological units. Accordingly, three types of Phraseological units are suggested: Phraseological fusions, Phraseological unities and Phraseological combinations. Phraseological fusions represent the highest stage of blending together. The meaning of the components is completely absorbed by the meaning of the whole. A typical example of a fusion is the emotional colloquial expression as mad as a hatter. Its meaning is not explicable from the meaning of its components. When the general meaning is understood, the meaning of the constituent parts is forgotten. The history of the expression shows that it has nothing to do with the makers of hats but really is reference to a snake, while mad had one of its oldest meanings furious with anger, so the original meaning was as furious as a snake. Phraseological fusions are specific for every language and do not lend themselves to literal translation into other languages.

Phraseological unities are much more numerous. They are clearly motivated. The meaning of the whole unit may be deduced from the meanings of its components: to lose one’s head to look a gift horse in the mouth, the last straw, the last drop, a fish out of water. Some of them are easily translated into other languages and even international: to know the way where the wind blows. The Phraseological combinations are not only motivated but contain one component used in its direct meaning, while the other is used metaphorically: to meet the requirements. We may introduce substitutions which do not destroy the meaning of the metaphorical element: to meet the necessity, the demand. The meaning of the whole unit will change but the meaning of the verb is the same.

The structural principle of classifying Phraseological units is based on their ability to perform the same syntactical functions as. According to this classification Phraseological units can be classified as parts of speech. Here we distinguishes the following groups:

a) Substantive denoting an object, a person, a living being, e.g. bullet train – поезд, redbrick university – новый университет, skeleton in the cupboard, high tea – an evening meal which combines meat or some similar extra dish with the usual tea, dog’s life

b) verbal phraseologisms denoting an action, a state, a feeling, e.g. to get on somebody’s coattails – сесть кому-либо на шею, to give one the bird – уволить

с) adjectival phraseologisms denoting a quality, e.g. as mad as a hatter – свихнувшийся, as loose as a goose – нескладный,

d) adverbial phraseologisms: with a bump - резко, in the soup – в трудном положении.

e) interjection phraseologisms, e.g. good Heavens

Phraseology is still a controversial subject which was and is studied by many Russian and foreign linguists and it still requires further study.

But we may say that phraseology represents expressive recourses of vocabulary. Used with care is an important warning because speech overloaded with idioms loses freshness and originality. Idioms are ready made units and their continual repetition sometimes wears them out, they lose their colors and become cliché. On the other hand, oral and written speech lacking idioms loses much in expressiveness, color and emotional force.

The main problems in lexicography

The problems of lexicography are connected with the selection of headwords, the number, the structure and contents of the vocabulary entry (in different types of dictionaries). The starting group of lexicographical problems deals with selection:

1) In the first place it is the problem of whether a general descriptive dictionary, whether unilingual or bilingual, should give the historical information about a word.

2) For the purpose of a dictionary, which must not be too massive, selection between scientific and technical terms is also a very important task.

3) It is a debatable point whether a unilingual explanatory dictionary should try to cover all the words of the language, including neologisms, nonce-word, slang, etc. and note with impartial accuracy all the words actually used by English people; or whether, as the great English lexicographer of the 18th century Samuel Johnson used to think, it should be perceptive, and (viewed from the other side) prohibitive. Dictionary-makers should attempt to improve and stabilize the English vocabulary according to the best classical samples and advise the readers on preferable usage. A distinctly modern criterion in selection of entries is the frequency of the words to be included. This is especially important for certain lines of practical work in preparing graded elementary textbooks.

The other problem which of the selected units have the right to a separate entry and which are to be included under one common head-word. These are, in other words, the issues of separateness and sameness of words. The first deals with syntagmatic boundaries of word-units and has to solve such questions as whether each other is a group of two separate words to be treated separately under the headwords each and other, or whether each other is a unit deserving a special entry (compare also: one another).

As to the sameness, this deals with paradigmatic boundaries. How many entries are justified for hound? Concise Oxford Dictionary has two one tot the noun, and the other for the verb: to chase (as) with hounds'; the verb and the noun are thus treated as homonyms. Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary combines them under one head-word, i.e. it takes them as variants of the same word (hence the term "sameness"). The problem is even more complicated with variants belonging to the same part of speech. This involves differentiation between polysemy and homonymy.

The second group of problems deals with the structure and content of a dictionary entry in different types of dictionaries. A historical dictionary (the Oxford Dictionary, for instance) is primarily concerned with the development of the English vocabulary. It arranges various senses chronologically, first comes the etymology, then the earliest meanings marked by the label obs. – obsolete. The etymologies are either comparative or confined to a single language. The development is illustrated by quotations, ranging from the oldest to recent usages of the word in question.

A descriptive dictionary dealing with current usage has to face its own specific problems. It has to give precedence to the most important meanings. But how is the most important meaning determined upon? So far each compiler was guided by his own personal opinion. An objective criterion would be statistical counts. But counting the frequency of different meanings of the same word is far more difficult than counting the frequency of its forms. It is therefore not by chance that up to now many counts have been undertaken only for word forms, irrespective of meaning. Also, the interdependence of meanings and their relative importance within the semantic structure of the word do not remain the same. They change almost incessantly, so that establishing their frequency would have to be repeated very often. The constant revisions necessary would make the publication of dictionaries very expensive. It may also be argued that an arrangement of meanings according to frequency would sometimes conceal the ties and relationship between various elements of the semantic structure.

A synchronic dictionary should also show the distribution of every word. It has been traditionally done by labeling words as belonging to a certain part of speech, and by noting some special cases of grammatically or lexically bound meanings. Thus, the word spin is labeled in The Concise Oxford Dictionary as v.t. & i, which gives a general idea of its distribution; its various senses are shown in connection with words that may serve as subject or object, e. g.: 2. (of spider, silkworm, etc.) make (web, gossamer, cocoon, or abs.) by extrusion of fine viscous thread... 10. spun glass (spun when heated into filaments that remain pliant when cold); spun gold, silver (gold, silver thread prepared for weaving...) This technique is gradually being improved upon, and compilers strive to provide more detailed information on these points.

The Advanced Learner's Dictionary ... by A.S. Hornby, E.V. Gatenby and H. Wakefield supplies information on the syntactical distribution of each verb. In their Notes on Syntax the compilers state that one who is learning English as a foreign language is apt to form sentences by analogy, which at times may lead him into error. For instance, the student must be warned against taking the use of the verb tell in the sentence Please tell me the meaning as a model for the word explain, because Please, explain me the meaning would be ungrammatical. For this purpose they provide a table of 25 verb patterns and supply the numerical indications in each verb entry. This gives the student the necessary guidance. Indications are also supplied as to which nouns and which semantic varieties of nouns may be used in the plural. This helps the student to avoid mistakes like *interesting information.

The third group of lexicographic problems is the problem of definitions in a unilingual dictionary. The explanation of meaning may be achieved by a group of synonyms which together give a fairly general idea; but one synonym is never sufficient for the purpose, because no absolute synonyms exist. Besides, if synonyms are the only type of explanation used, the reader will be placed in a vicious circle of synonymic references, with not a single word actually explained. Definitions serve the purpose much better. These are of two main types. If they are only concerned with words as speech material, the definition is called lіnguіstіc. If they are concerned with things for which the words are names, they are termed encyclopedic. American dictionaries are for the most part traditionally encyclopedic, which accounts for so much attention paid to graphic illustration. They furnish their readers with far more information about facts and things than their British counterparts, which are more linguistic and more fundamentally occupied with purely lexical data with the grammatical properties of words, their components, their stylistic features, etc.

Opinions differ upon the optimum proportion of linguistic and encyclopedic material.